Two things are immediately apparent on the road to Change ™; why democrats are convinced The Rich® don’t pay taxes, (Obama’s elitist left wing brain trust is overflowing with people who don’t pay their taxes), and why Republicans have been beaten like a bunch of two-dollar whores in the past two elections; the difference between a donkey and an ass is what exactly? It’s called the RINO virus.
Can John Lynch capitalize on the slim advantage of Keynesian economics? .
First off, Obama is couching his spending addiction in Keynesian economics. He has to realise that it won’t actually work unless he has spending a) on projects that will have a positive economic impact on long term growth outside of government, and b) tax cuts that actually expand economic opportunity and stimulate short term growth in the business community now.
Tax cuts are the key. They create long term stability and attract business and investment that will eventually increase revenue to offset the initial deficit spending. Government spending never creates more revenue for the government, so when deficit intolerance intrudes on poor spending choices, taxes are raised–killing growth–and the Keynesian model collapses, creating economic stagnation, and a drawn out recession.
President Obama’s stimulus is destined to fail without a major retool because his spending is loaded with handouts that do no significant long term economic good, and what he calls tax cuts are actually welfare checks that do no short term lasting good. Keynesian spending was never meant to fund art or special interest groups and if Obama persists he will have stimulated nothing of lasting value, including his usefulness as a leader.
But John Lynch has an opportunity to make New Hampshire the place to do business—partly on the Federal dime–if he has the sense to take a chance and makes the right decisions. He may get up to 300 million, and if he handles it properly, he might save New Hampshire some of the pain other New England states are pre-destined to suffer because of their tax policies.
Rumor has it that the Obama administration is preparing to use its executive authority to have the EPA declare a naturally occurring gas a pollutant.
That’s right, the stuff you exhale every minute of your life, the same gas that plants love, is going to be tagged as a pollutant so it falls under the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection agency.
What environment exactly are they protecting if the stuff plants breath is declared a pollutant? The moon? Can we send Al Gore there to do a meet and greet?
And now I’m wondering how this might affect the Swiss governments Bill of Rights for Plants. Seems to me we are risking some tin-foil hat policy overlap with this one.
Wait, I figured it out. If decreasing CO2 means fewer plants, that’s more like little plant abortions, which as we all know is not the immoral killing of a life because if the plant is not actually breathing yet, it’s just someone else making a choice.
Of course that still leaves us with the EPA regulating naturally occurring elements in the atmposphere to advance the Presidents political agenda. Better watch out Obama. If it turns out that CO2 is not a WMD (weapon of man-made destruction) your going to have some esplaining to do.
Might I suggest staying away from banners that read “Mission Accomplished.”
Me- This is a great piece. I present it without interruption.
Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland
In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures — they’re going down, not up.
(More on the jump)
